Debate and Discussion

No, it is not a matter of Christian vs Muslims. We don't ban headdresses, we don't ban separate prayer rooms, we don't ban cultural dresses.

However, burkas completely cover the face and therefore directly conflict with Western norms. If you're an Australian or Amazonian aborigine and you walk around your land with only a loincloth, you cannot claim freedom to do so in a Western city.

The precipitating factor is increased political confict with Muslims, correct. But the burka is isolated because it is the only offensive clothing issue present; it was just tolerated until now, out of political correctness.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The GapsFIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold

mlaiNo, it is not a matter of Christian vs Muslims. We don't ban headdresses, we don't ban separate prayer rooms, we don't ban cultural dresses.

The fact that they havenâ€™t gone to the extent of banning any and all Muslim dress, banning the Koran, and declaring Christianity the only legal religion under their jurisdiction, does not change anything.

mlaiHowever, burkas completely cover the face and therefore directly conflict with Western norms. If you're an Australian or Amazonian aborigine and you walk around your land with only a loincloth, you cannot claim freedom to do so in a Western city.

Anything you see at a Paris fashion show “conflicts with Western norms.” There are reasons why nudists or people who wear nothing but a strap of cloth to cover their dangly parts aren't allowed to go out in public that way, and I shouldn't have to explain to you why. But to argue that burquas are indecent because they donâ€™t show enough skin is quite the novel approach, and Iâ€™m sorry but I'm not convinced that even you believe it, or have put much thought into it.

mlaiThe precipitating factor is increased political confict with Muslims, correct. But the burka is isolated because it is the only offensive clothing issue present; it was just tolerated until now, out of political correctness.

Allowing people to express themselves through cultural dress is not political correctness; itâ€™s common courtesy. It's not something that you “tolerate,” as if it's some great burden for you that people are actually *gasp* wearing unusual clothes! You've never been to Times Square, have you?

I lived in NYC for 25 years. And yeah, when one day I decided I've had enough of ppl coughing in the subway, and I rode the train wearing a medical mask, people kept looking at me. In NYC. And no, I'm not Middle Eastern.

Ofc I believe that covering up your face is indecent and disruptive, because it's true. You just go on and keep living in your private little PC utopia thinking that it's not.

I wish ppl are more receptive to wearing medical masks, because frankly the NYC public transports need it. That has a public health reason, and it's still not “tolerated.”

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The GapsFIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold

mlaiI lived in NYC for 25 years. And yeah, when one day I decided I've had enough of ppl coughing in the subway, and I rode the train wearing a medical mask, people kept looking at me. In NYC. And no, I'm not Middle Eastern.

Ofc I believe that covering up your face is indecent and disruptive, because it's true. You just go on and keep living in your private little PC utopia thinking that it's not.

I wish ppl are more receptive to wearing medical masks, because frankly the NYC public transports need it. That has a public health reason, and it's still not “tolerated.”

Thats quite funny, if I saw you then I would think you were a little paranoid but nothing more, that said I may think you were sensible as I have never been in that situation and do not know how bad it is, as to the main topic…

The burka should be banned from public IF other similar garmant/headwear are banned for the same reason.So if it is illegal to wear something that covers the head for security/honesty/safety/legal reasons then it should apply to all regardless of religious or cultural origins.

mlaiOfc I believe that covering up your face is indecent and disruptive, because it's true. You just go on and keep living in your private little PC utopia thinking that it's not.

Actually my whole argument was that being disruptive/novel is not grounds in and of itself for criminalizing personal attire. I donâ€™t mean to criticize your debate tactics, but it generally is considered good practice to read what people write before you disagree with them.

And before you get too worked up into a xenophobe frenzy over how brown people shouldnâ€™t be allowed to wear anything you consider out of place in good white society, I should let you know that the justification youâ€™re using is not the rationale being used by the French Parliament, so itâ€™d be nice to get this discussion back on track. There actually are a lot of interesting questions that the legislation brings up, such as when does freedom of expression take a backseat to national values, and whether or not people are willing participants in their culture or if they are in fact coerced thus warranting state intervention. If the state can declare veils detrimental to gender equality and thereby criminalize their use, then can it also declare religion detrimental to childrenâ€™s development and take similar action? Is the lawâ€™s intent as stated, simply a matter of â€œdefending human dignity,â€ as the French put it, or is it in fact part of a design to jump-start assimilation in a place where the whole â€œmelting plotâ€ concept hasnâ€™t gone as smoothly as some would have liked? Can it work? These are all intriguing questions, and I canâ€™t wait to see how it all plays out.

GenejokeThe burka should be banned from public IF other similar garmant/headwear are banned for the same reason.So if it is illegal to wear something that covers the head for security/honesty/safety/legal reasons then it should apply to all regardless of religious or cultural origins.

I think the law does ban all face coverings, but it's pretty clear that it was targeted at Muslim garments, the burqua in particular. If you think about it though, it would have to be all-inclusive in order to be effective. I mean, if they banned burquas but not other coverings, then Muslim women could simply find some kind of substitute like, um, pantyhose over the face… head kilts… or hey, we already mentioned ski masks. I wonder if those are still legal?…

Actually my whole argument was that being disruptive/novel is not grounds in and of itself for criminalizing personal attire. I donâ€™t mean to criticize your debate tactics, but it generally is considered good practice to read what people write before you disagree with them.And before you get too worked up into a xenophobe frenzy over how brown people shouldnâ€™t be allowed to wear anything you consider out of place in good white society,

You should follow your own advice, for a proper debate.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The GapsFIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold

If their religion bans them from baring their face in public they should be allowed to do mask themselves. To me the fair compromise is that law enforcement should be able to (with probable cause) ask the woman to remove the covering for verification of identity or other legitimate reasons. For similar reasons photo IDs require the removal of face obscuring items such as hats, glasses, masks, etc. This way their personal freedoms are not impugned, and any legitimate cause for removal is not overly-hindered.

The idea behind this is that religion like any personal freedoms should not be allowed to extend into the personal rights and wellbeing of others as represented by the common good.

What if my religion calls for blasting ritualistic music throughout the neighborhood at 3am or if my religion calls for polygamy or requires I gather my leavings or slaughter cows in my front yard?

As silly or obtuse as these examples are they illustrate the point that where a religion crosses over public nuisance laws there has to be a line.

As far as burkas go they're rather harmless an unobtrusive, but don't get any more rights to protection than my voodoo mask in the face of official inquiry. Otherwise government has no rights nor say on it no matter how threatening, abnormal, or annoying my neighbors and nearby pedestrians find me in my religious or cultural garb.

Well put Imshard, but a few things to consider (and yes, Iâ€™m now playing Devilâ€™s advocate, because this thread needs a decent villain):

1) The burqua is not obligatory on theological grounds. Most Muslim women do not cover their faces in public, except in countries where they are legally compelled to do so. Face coverings such as the burqua and the niqab then do not deserve the protections of bona fide religious expression and are instead, at best, of cultural (not religious) importance to individuals.

The argument further goes that in Western nations it is an extremely small minority among Muslim women who cover their faces in public, a great many of their number being new converts, and that it cannot then be taken seriously that this is a terribly sacred tenet of the culture if it is practiced by so few. More likely it is intended as a symbol of rebellion. Rather than being an expression of solidarity with Islamic culture it is an expression of contempt for Western culture.

2) True, someone elseâ€™s wearing of the burqua causes you no personal harm. However, its intended purpose is to objectify the woman by making her anonymous and segregating her from male culture. This is incompatible with the values of progressive Western society and allowing individuals to openly promulgate this sedition is harmful to the equality of women and counterproductive to the gains they have made over the last decades.

So I would ask you, if the garment is intended as a giant thumb in the eye to Western society, why do we have an obligation to defend someoneâ€™s choice to wear it? Allowing it is a sign of our own cultural weakness and the amorphous vacillating nature of Western values.

El CidSo I would ask you, if the garment is intended as a giant thumb in the eye to Western society, why do we have an obligation to defend someoneâ€™s choice to wear it? Allowing it is a sign of our own cultural weakness and the amorphous vacillating nature of Western values.

Is it truly a thumb in the eye? I doubt it. Though that may factor in for some people, the principle of rights protection still goes both ways. They have the choice to wear it if they want to. Regardless of motivation.

EDIT: Furthermore? I like to think tolerance and acceptance are a critical part of “Western” values not a weakness. As I noted before there are certain common sense lines that can't be crossed there, but allowing people to live their own lives in the manner they wish is critical to a free society.

I believe mlai has presented some very good points, which slightly overlap some of mine. Wearing a Burqa or Naqib in a western country is not conforming to social norms. I don't have any problems with headscarves, but wearing balaclavas, hoodies and Naqibs are anti-social, define differences in society and encourage social separation. That maybe fine in some country where the men are “weak willed” (I intend a fair amount of sarcasm) or where family values simply demand it. But in western society your are expected to conform (even if the government official supports some sort of “multicultural” policy, more or less it tends to be lip service for the new immigrants, and a tremendous waste of tax payers money, but that's just my cynical view of things :) )

In short, in France you are expected to act French (no face covering), otherwise your a tourist, which would be unfitting for a permanent resident of France wouldn't it?

The problem with that argument is that in a multicultural society youâ€™re actually NOT expected to fully conform with the dominant culture (thus the term â€œmultiâ€ cultural as opposed to mono-cultural). So this notion that people are somehow doing something wrong by bringing their cultural baggage along with them comes completely out of thin air. Theyâ€™re doing exactly what Western society encourages them to do.

I know Iâ€™m supposed to be pretending to be on your side, but the whole reason I did that was because the supporting arguments thus far (the one youâ€™re propagating in particular) are so poor as to actually caricature your position. People are absolutely within their rights to be â€œoutside the normâ€ in Western society and, as Imshard pointed out, having a diverse population is something celebrated and sacred to our own values. If you're working within the confines of our multicultural reality, then your best bet is to find a reason why this should be an exception to the rule, rather than pretending the rule doesn't exist.

Now, you COULD put forth an argument that multiculturalism SHOULDNâ€™T be seen as a virtue and run with that (or I could do it for you if I were feeling particularly cheeky today). But trying to argue that we're multicultural and at the same time shouldnâ€™t allow multiple cultures is self-contradictory.

But surely for a multi cultural society to work all cultures should compromise for the sake of the whole. Otherwise we should then allow cannibals to eat people because it is part of their culture, or satanists to perform human sacrifices because it is a religious ceremony. The fact is a truly tolerant and multicultural society is an ideal not what exists anywhere in the world. To be truly have the right to be free from the norm you would have to live somewhere with no laws or government.

You hit upon a key point there, that there must be compromise. Multiculturalism is a two-way street. The respect must be mutual and, at least in the perceptions of some in the No Burqua Camp, so far it hasnâ€™t been. Their claim is that Europe up to this point has bent over backwards to accommodate Muslim immigrants but their generosity has be repaid with scorn and exploitation. And this is one potential hazard of being too permissive: that the host society while attempting to be tolerant and accommodating, can instead become subservient and overindulgent, and ultimately taken advantage of by newcomers who extend to them none of the courtesies they have bestowed upon them.

These attitudes are often powerfully expressed in the many Youtube rantings of humorist Pat Condell.

El CidTheir claim is that Europe up to this point has bent over backwards to accommodate Muslim immigrants but their generosity has be repaid with scorn and exploitation. And this is one potential hazard of being too permissive: that the host society while attempting to be tolerant and accommodating, can instead become subservient and overindulgent, and ultimately taken advantage of by newcomers who extend to them none of the courtesies they have bestowed upon them.

To me that smacks of xenophobia, though it is a legitimate view. The flaw in their rationale though is assuming the modesty garb is a badge of hostility and rejection of nation and culture.

While this may be the case for some bitter and hostile immigrants, I think the choice of wearing a burqua has more to do with tradition, family values, and religion. Unless they can prove burquas are equivalent to wearing gang colors in terms of hostility and criminal intent, this issue should be laid to rest.

P.S.

I should add that I don't personally agree with the practice of wearing a burqua. It is repressive, chauvinistic, pointless, and repulsive. Its bad enough when you're forced to wear it, let alone choose to wear in a place where it's not required. Still, whatever floats your boat ladies, go right ahead. You have that choice.

RafenYou all clearly have no idea what your talking about.Religious freedom? The naqib and the burka and not religious requirements, its merely a cultural thing despite what others may say. Islam only requires women to wear a head scarf. Therefore this doesn't technically break and laws on religious freedom. Finally the term “Muslim” is not a racial or ethnic classification so your point of “racism” is moot.

Secondly you people need to continually remember that as long as the people that the government was tailored to take care of (in Frances case, the French majority or simply the “majority”) support whatever law is being passes in their own borders they have every right to enforce it. I don't see widespread public outcry at the US green-card as a Immigrant bashing device that discriminates against the more challenged immigrants.

The same goes for a Muslim country, if you go to Saudi Arabia you are expected to (by law) dress in a manner they (the Saudis) are accustomed, and as long as their public supports this they have every right to enforce such a law within their own borders.

On another Note, I don't believe in this whole “multicultural” thing. Current results are hardly positive. Many governments seem to try and justify this by giving absurd examples of past “multicultural” civilizations.E.g Roman Empire (which subjugated other cultures, non people totting non roman culture served as second class citizens)Ancient Britain of the Saxons, Celts, vikings ect. (fails to recognize that these cultures were both already inter-related both culturally, religiously and ethnically. Not only that they didn't exactly like each other….)and others all of which instead seem to promote monoculture to those whom who do even rudimentary research on theses examples.

On another Note, I don't believe in this whole “multicultural” thing. Current results are hardly positive. Many governments seem to try and justify this by giving absurd examples of past “multicultural” civilizations.E.g Roman Empire (which subjugated other cultures, non people totting non roman culture served as second class citizens)Ancient Britain of the Saxons, Celts, vikings ect. (fails to recognize that these cultures were both already inter-related both culturally, religiously and ethnically. Not only that they didn't exactly like each other….)and others all of which instead seem to promote monoculture to those whom who do even rudimentary research on theses examples.

Thereâ€™s room for both pessimism and optimism in that regard. Ancient Rome was indeed a cosmopolitan city with distinct religions, nationalities, and ethnic groups all packed in together, but it was far from a perfectly egalitarian society and there was plenty of bigotry to go around, whether you were of the wrong gender, the wrong social class, or the wrong ethnic group. So on the one hand, there were persecutions of Christians, but on the other hand, it had to have been a considerably tolerant society to have allowed such a large Christian population to emerge in the first place.

What is clear, however, is that while Rome did have its fair share of culture clashes, as Iâ€™d imagine also has every heterogeneous society since the beginning of time, it wasnâ€™t those challenges which brought about their downfall. These conflicts really only amounted to nuisances on the grander scale of things. Even with a purely homogeneous â€œtrueâ€ Roman population, the Western Empire still would have fallen to the Germans, if not somebody else even sooner. Arguing that they, or we, would be somehow better off without diversity is a naÃ¯ve utopianism. Itâ€™s an unobtainable goal and likely undesirable if it could be fleetingly obtained. Sure dealing with other cultures can at times be a policymaking headache, but the process of overcoming challenges is the mother of innovation and ultimately a boon to social growth. Aiming to eliminate diversity altogether is a recipe for social stagnation and likely decline.

Look I just break it down like this: No matter what people are going to find ways to differentiate themselves from everyone else and for whatever reason it results in conflicts.

Me? I don't really care whatever petty issues you come up with (because ultimately all the crap humans fight about really is quite meaningless), I'm just going to bypass all the bitching, childishness and squabbling and go straight to the reconciliation and continue living a happy life doing something PRODUCTIVE instead of wasting my time on all the divisive behavior and rhetoric.

I just read through a pamphlet that some Muslim street preacher gave to me.

According to the pamphlet:- the version of Islam that the street preacher practices is a very pacifist version. It says that a real Muslim who follows the Koran will not even hurt a fly. Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Al-CIAda, etc. are NOT EVEN Muslim because the violence they preach is not even in the Koran (if you don't follow the Koran, you are not a Muslim).

- Veils, Headscarves, Burqua, etc. are there to protect the women from the “lustful” eyes of men. Women should be covered up because every part of their bodies serve as an occasion of sin (impure thoughts). The pamphlet also showed women who converted to Islam because Islam is the religion that respects women. And the feminism being taught in the West only serves to degrade (by encouraging them to wear as little clothing as possible) and enslave (by making them work instead of caring for the children) women.

- Marrying multiple wives is ok as long as you can equally provide for all of them. It is also a good thing because women outnumber men and if all men married one woman, the remaining women will end up lonely. That is why, it is the moral thing to do to marry multiple women.

kyupolI just read through a pamphlet that some Muslim street preacher gave to me.

ohhh, this is gonna be funny. people preaching their beleifs in the streets are always gold. i mean, how sane can it be if your only way to share it is to hurl it bodliy at passer-by?

According to the pamphlet:- the version of Islam that the street preacher practices is a very pacifist version. It says that a real Muslim who follows the Koran will not even hurt a fly. Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Al-CIAda, etc. are NOT EVEN Muslim because the violence they preach is not even in the Koran (if you don't follow the Koran, you are not a Muslim).

yeah, that's just another version of the “good christian” defense. doesn't count for anything, it's just trying to deflect any guilt from their beleifs. also, you misspelled Cicida, and why is it named Al?

- Veils, Headscarves, Burqua, etc. are there to protect the women from the “lustful” eyes of men. Women should be covered up because every part of their bodies serve as an occasion of sin (impure thoughts). The pamphlet also showed women who converted to Islam because Islam is the religion that respects women. And the feminism being taught in the West only serves to degrade (by encouraging them to wear as little clothing as possible) and enslave (by making them work instead of caring for the children) women.

i've always believed the best way to piss off muslim men is to point out that their entire religion hates them. i can sit there and cite their own holy text calling them mindless, ravening dogs that can't keep themselves from breaking into a rampage of rape and murder if they so much as see a woman's bare face before marriage.

that said, feminism's been pretty well stamped down by muslim thinking hasn't it?

- Marrying multiple wives is ok as long as you can equally provide for all of them. It is also a good thing because women outnumber men and if all men married one woman, the remaining women will end up lonely. That is why, it is the moral thing to do to marry multiple women.

sorry, lesbians. check and mate! once again, sapphic romance has solved the flaws in religious logic.

SomeoneI just read through a pamphlet that some Muslim street preacher gave to me.

When I get home I'll start a christian handout stand.. right next to a similar preacher :) Just for laughs. Now onwards

kyupolAccording to the pamphlet:- the version of Islam that the street preacher practices is a very pacifist version. It says that a real Muslim who follows the Koran will not even hurt a fly. Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Al-CIAda, etc. are NOT EVEN Muslim because the violence they preach is not even in the Koran (if you don't follow the Koran, you are not a Muslim).

Yea well the Qu'ran is the only holy book I've ever read that contains entries sections devoted on the instruction on how to wage war. Enough said. Admittedly Christianity has gone to war as a faith, but not without a form of proper (by Romes standards) provocation (I can and will back this up). Also the final line that you added

Someoneif you don't follow the Koran, you are not a Muslim

is not quite true. In the Qu'ran and some religious source some see followers of Abrahamic or Monotheistic faiths (Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism ect.) as “honorary Muslims” provided they are of good character. Again this is not widely agreed upon and not seen by all. I just wanted to add that little snippet.

kyupolVeils, Headscarves, Burqua, etc. are there to protect the women from the “lustful” eyes of men. Women should be covered up because every part of their bodies serve as an occasion of sin (impure thoughts). The pamphlet also showed women who converted to Islam because Islam is the religion that respects women. And the feminism being taught in the West only serves to degrade (by encouraging them to wear as little clothing as possible) and enslave (by making them work instead of caring for the children) women.

This I find quite… Funny. Rather than ask for self restraint (like in Christianity, Buddhism ect.) Islam seems to think that Western Feminist values were brought on to debase women and entice men. In fact feminist values were fought for by women (they earned their respect, through war and other facets) rather than enforced by men. Again I see this as a very horrible and disrespectful view (if this was said in a western country or rather “my” country, in a Muslim state its their rules, and I'm happy to oblige by them if I want to stay their, you are to respect the host of the house after all?) Its attitudes like this that led to the rise of the Skaf gang… Again its not a universal one. And the interpretation of “protection from sin” is varied. It should be noted that Jews have a similar rule (but looped holed by having women wear wigs)Also the country with the most rapes per 1000 people is Egypt.. A Muslim country… Mind you it wouldn't surprise me if Saudi Arabia has the lowest rate in the world

kyupolMarrying multiple wives is ok as long as you can equally provide for all of them. It is also a good thing because women outnumber men and if all men married one woman, the remaining women will end up lonely. That is why, it is the moral thing to do to marry multiple women.

Yea well last time I checked Pakistan has alot more men for every woman. A trend seen in many muslim countries (but not specifically Arab ones..)

I try to give even points to this but I want to push forward a point I've already made. England/France/Belgium ect is made for its indigenous people (or rather its founding people).

ISecondly you people need to continually remember that as long as the people that the government was tailored to take care of (in Frances case, the French majority or simply the “majority” support whatever law is being passes in their own borders they have every right to enforce it. I don't see widespread public outcry at the US green-card as a Immigrant bashing device that discriminates against the more challenged immigrants.

The same goes for a Muslim country, if you go to Saudi Arabia you are expected to (by law) dress in a manner they (the Saudis) are accustomed, and as long as their public supports this they have every right to enforce such a law within their own borders.

If they want to protect their culture, way of life, religion and soceity in such a way as has been suggested, tough. If you don't like it GTFO/

When I get home I'll start a christian handout stand.. right next to a similar preacher Just for laughs. Now onwards

I've seen that already happen. Near the same intersection, I saw the following groups:

- Pacifist Muslims – at least according to the pamphlet. But when I talked to one of em, he's in “fight mode”. I wasn't even criticizing Islam but still he became defensive. I notice though that Christians can tolerate and respond in a civilized manner to criticisms of their religion (just don't bring out the “god-is-evil” argument).

- Black Israelites – the guys who believe that Jesus isn't white. “White” Jesus is the devil. Jews in Israel don't belong there cuz they're not real Jews. The real Jews aka “chosen people of God” are Blacks. I saw them stomp all over a picture of a defaced “white” Jesus. Good thing the majority Christian members (they get pretty hardcore in their religion at times. They honestly believe that the earth is 5000 years old and all that… ) of the 9-11 truth movement didn't see that. Or else… possible rumble?!?

- Two Christian street preachers. One is mainline Born Again, the other is anti-New World Order who thinks Islam is created by the Vatican (who is the top of the pyramid that also controls the Illuminati, Masons, etc.) and Allah is really a high ranking demon who serves Satan… he doesn't talk about that to the Muslims though.

- 9-11 Truth / Wearechange = the most respected group of them all. Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. shake their hands.

- Animal rights and environmental groups = sometimes get ridiculous. I saw a girl dressed in a bunny suit with fake blood and facial bruises on her.

- One time there was this New-Agey group going around giving free hugs and talking about love and how humanity will evolve to a higher consciousness by 2012. When they're gone though, the Christians start talking smack about them. New Agers = Luciferians according to the Christians.

imshardLook I just break it down like this: No matter what people are going to find ways to differentiate themselves from everyone else and for whatever reason it results in conflicts.

Me? I don't really care whatever petty issues you come up with (because ultimately all the crap humans fight about really is quite meaningless), I'm just going to bypass all the bitching, childishness and squabbling and go straight to the reconciliation and continue living a happy life doing something PRODUCTIVE instead of wasting my time on all the divisive behavior and rhetoric.

Exactly!!

You know what? In the supermarket today while I was doing some shopping, I saw a lady in full burkha, hijab, and niquab. All in a beautiful olive green. She had her son with her and she was doing her shopping too.

Funnily enough, at the sight of her in that traditional gear, I wasn't offended! o_OAnd I wasn't afraid that she would rob me! O_oI didn't think she was going to attack me! O_OI didn't think she was going to explode! @_@And I didn't feel projected pity for her as a force-hidden, male dominated avatar for all female subservience everywhere…

All I thought was- Wow, you're really, really brave to go around like that with all the anti-Muslim xenephobia floating around. Plus you look good. Good on ya babe. Express yourself the way you want and fuck what people say.

The lady on the till when I paid for my stuff was Middle Eastern too, no veils, scarves etc though. She wore a t-shirt and her hair was out all over the place, black and purple.

Thank goodness people here are able to dress the way they like. I sincerely hope things stay that way. Thank goodness for social freedoms.

Headscarves and Burquas have led to some of most beautiful love poetry in the world all about the allure of the eyes and the fantasy of what is beneath.

By the way segregation of women and the veil are actually Byzantine Christian in origin. It is argued whether it is the Quran and Hadith and was probably not practised during the life of the Prophet. There was only the headscarf which is a tradition in that part of the world also mentioned in the Paul. Headscarfs are quite practical in a part of the world with such strong sunlight and little shade.

But for outlawing it? That's the French and the arrogance of their culture. How many other nations have an academy to preserve the purity of their language? ;) As Imshard has said it it only a distraction and there are far more important things in life. We Westerners are interested in decolletage so burquas are just against our culture. But the allure of a woman's eyes as opposed to her boobs?